Former Dallas Police Officer Amber Guyer Indicted on Murder

https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/D.../htm/PE.19.htm

I don't see anything about premeditation in Texas Penal Code for murder.

She knew shooting him may kill him. She intended to shoot him.

Murder.

Now...if she knew him. Say they were lovers and she caught him cheating. She couldn't get over it and decided to go kill him for previously cheating on her, then that would be capital murder. ( if she caught him in the act and did it right then and there, then that would only be murder)

If she lived in the apartment above him and was practicing her draw with her loaded gun and she accidentally pulled the trigger one time while holstering her weapon, then in may be negligent homicide or manslaugher.

I just post what I read and how I interpret what I've read about this case on many websites the past 3 months..

Don't we have a member here who is an attorney?

Once again the DA has stated that to be found guilty of murder one has to willingly and knowingly kill

Once again the DA has stated that to be found guilty of murder one has to willingly and knowingly kill Originally Posted by txexetoo

The DA could say he shits rainbows & sunshine. Doesnt change the fact that shit stinks.

She did willingly pull her gun & she knew it could kill him.

The DA could say he shits rainbows & sunshine. Doesnt change the fact that shit stinks.

She did willingly pull her gun & she knew it could kill him. Originally Posted by grean

I want to correct what i wrote: the DA said in order to commit murder one must knowingly and willing commit a crime.

If the officer felt she was in her home protecting her home she can’t commit murder

I want to correct what i wrote: the DA said in order to commit murder one must knowingly and willing commit a crime.

If the officer felt she was in her home protecting her home she can’t commit murder Originally Posted by txexetoo

I linked the penal code. The DA doesn't get to make up shit.

An officer was convicted of murder recently for killing a teenager leaving a party. At the time, he didn't think he was committing a crime.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/ex-texas-police-officer-roy-oliver-found-guilty-murder-shooting-n904166


You are responsible for every round out of that weapon you shoot.

I linked the penal code. The DA doesn't get to make up shit.

An officer was convicted of murder recently for killing a teenager leaving a party. At the time, he didn't think he was committing a crime.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...ooting-n904166


You are responsible for every round out of that weapon you shoot. Originally Posted by grean

He claimed he wasn’t committing a crime because he said the car was driving towards another officer. That was proven to be a lie. He knew that car was no danger to anyone.

Without catching much of the news down where i'm at, I think CG2014 got the most likely path of it.
The people are asking for murder, they got the charge they want.
*BUT* proving it takes a higher degree of proof.
The people aren't going to be happy with the result.
Careful what you wish for.

Money on a riot happening after the verdict?

The people aren't going to be happy with the result.
Careful what you wish for.

Money on a riot happening after the verdict? Originally Posted by Precious_b

if she is found not guilty of murder, and thus set free?

yes, that would be the first full-scale riot ever in Dallas, to my knowledge.. that is at least a year away, but time won't keep rioters away from this one.

All the folks talking bad about the police because of this incident.

Remember this?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_s...olice_officers

When the gunshots begin, those protesters who were protesting the police, who do they run for help begging to please help them and don't let me get shot and die?

To the police!

The city was going to burn if they didn't go for murder. Now when they can't convict her of murder the city will burn. We will have all the race baiters here saying that Dallas is a divided city where blacks and whites don't get along. Far from the truth. Of course you have your 2% that believe we are divided.



The sad thing there os no winning here for either side.

if she is found not guilty of murder, and thus set free?
... Originally Posted by Chung Tran

...
When the gunshots begin, those protesters who were protesting the police, who do they run for help begging to please help them and don't let me get shot and die?

To the police! Originally Posted by CG2014

The city was going to burn if they didn't go for murder.
...
The sad thing there os no winning here for either side. Originally Posted by Daddy4Pussy

It is easier to convict of a charge lesser than murder.
The crowd got the charge they wanted.
My bet is they are not going to get the conviction they want.
They should think about what they asked for before doing the stupid thing like Ferguson.

My bet is they are not going to get the conviction they want.
They should think about what they asked for before doing the stupid thing like Ferguson. Originally Posted by Precious_b

I'm inclined to agree, BUT we don't know what the Grand Jury knows.. and the D.A. still has to accept the GJ recommendation, for a murder charge to go forward.. which probably won't happen if the evidence doesn't warrant. of course I'm assuming rational people are making the decisions, for rational reasons.


we don't know, though.. Guyger and Botham-Jean might have been in a relationship turned sour.. she might have shot him in cold blood like a dog. we never got his side of what happened.

if she is found not guilty of murder, and thus set free?

yes, that would be the first full-scale riot ever in Dallas, to my knowledge.. that is at least a year away, but time won't keep rioters away from this one. Originally Posted by Chung Tran

No, she doesn’t go free. Tje State has, and surely will take, the option of submitting to the jury what are called “lesser included” offenses, including second degree murder, manslaughter, criminally negligent homocide, and less likely, aggravated assault. If the jury acquits in the most serious charge, they move down the list.

I'm inclined to agree, BUT we don't know what the Grand Jury knows.. Originally Posted by Chung Tran

Exactly. The Grand Jury “likely” heard evidence that gave them enough reason to move forward with a murder trail. Time will tell.

Regarding “lesser included offenses”, I came across this expanded definition ....


What the jury must do

A jury must follow the law it is given by a judge. A jury cannot "go rogue" and bring back a verdict on something that has not been charged and/or that the jury has not been told to consider.

So, whether a jury has the option of convicting a defendant of a lesser included offense - a crime contained within a more serious crime - depends on the instructions the judge gives.
Is it up to the judge and the judge alone?

Not necessarily. Typically, judges must issue the lesser included offense instructions to the jury if the lesser included offense is part of the charged offense if there exists significant evidence the defendant only committed that lesser crime. So, only if the evidence supports such instructions.

Further, at least in some jurisdictions, a trial judge may not instruct jurors on a lesser included offense if there has been no request to do so by the defendant. There appears to be a disagreement over what, if any, power a prosecutor should have in making such a request. One side would argue that a prosecutor would want to ask for it so that a defendant who is getting off on the larger crime doesn't skate completely free on, for example, a technicality. Another side would argue that prosecutors should not have a say because they are in fact who control which charges are submitted to the grand jury for indictment.